INNOVATION ECONOMY MANAGEMENT: EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE AND WAYS OF IMPLEMENTATION IN UKRAINE

The subject of the study is the governance architecture for managing an innovative economy in the European Union and the practical design of an implementation model for Ukraine under conditions of recovery and European integration. The paper examines how institutional design, regulatory frameworks, financial instruments, and coordination mechanisms interact in shaping innovation outcomes, and why innovation policy should be treated as a managed public-policy cycle rather than a set of isolated initiatives. Special attention is paid to the role of public administration and civil servants as carriers of delivery capacity, to analytics as decision infrastructure in the policy cycle, and to the embeddedness of innovation governance in international relations through standards, programme participation, and technology cooperation. The paper also addresses diplomacy and mediation as governance practices for aligning interests within complex innovation ecosystems and for maintaining legitimacy under heightened integrity requirements. Methodology. The research is based on a combination of systemic, comparative, and institutional approaches. It integrates analysis of leading innovation-policy models (national innovation systems, Triple Helix, mission-oriented policy, and open innovation) with an examination of EU multi-level governance logic and its delivery instruments, including programme cycles, portfolio financing, innovation procurement, competition and state-aid discipline, and evidence-based monitoring. This methodological design enables identification of institutional interface risks that typically arise between strategy and implementation, as well as assessment of Ukraine’s baseline constraints linked to fragmentation of competences, capacity limitations, wartime pressures, and regional heterogeneity. The aim of the work is to substantiate a coherent model of innovation governance for Ukraine that is compatible with European approaches and capable of operating under recovery-scale funding, while ensuring controllability, transparency, competition for resources, partnership, and accountability for results. The results of the study show that EU innovation governance functions as a portfolio-based management system in which priorities are operationalized through repeatable programmes, predictable funding windows, standardized procedures, and measurable performance signals. The effectiveness of this model is driven by delivery capacity within public administration, disciplined instrument design across the full innovation lifecycle, and analytics-based monitoring that supports policy correction. For Ukraine, the key challenge is the gap between strategic planning and administrable delivery, reinforced by overlaps of mandates and unowned zones at lifecycle transition points. The paper proposes a Target Operating Model built on functional separation between a policy owner responsible for portfolio coherence and specialized delivery agencies responsible for execution; a standing inter-ministerial synchronization mechanism to align innovation tools with procurement, skills, competition constraints, digital transformation, and recovery investments; and a regional contour grounded in smart specialization logic to generate pipelines and provide adoption environments. The proposed roadmap emphasizes innovation procurement as a demand-side scaling lever, standardized stage-gate progression for financing instruments, professionalization of civil-service competencies, data-driven management routines, and a compact KPI framework linking inputs, outputs, and outcomes with public reporting and effectiveness audit. Conclusion. Sustainable innovation governance requires shifting from declarative strategies and fragmented initiatives toward an integrated operating model that aligns institutional responsibility, procedures, data, and performance accountability in one coherent cycle. For Ukraine, the most feasible path is not replicating EU institutional forms, but reproducing their functional logic: predictable programme cycles, administrable instruments across the innovation chain, procurement-enabled demand creation, disciplined integrity safeguards, and analytics-based monitoring that enables continuous adjustment and strengthens trust in resource allocation during recovery and integration.